Rethinking the Death Penalty

One day in the late 1990s, within a year of my becoming a Christian, I found myself  bedridden with a terrible cold. I had ditched out on work and college classes that day and nursed myself with some macaroni and cheese while watching a mid-day airing of Pat Robertson's The 700 Club. 

On this particular episode of the show, Robertson and his co-hosts discussed the biblical necessity for the death penalty. I don't recall all the details, but at this time there was a controversy brewing over a person facing capital punishment and it made the news. I recall that there were protests to have the execution stayed and some of the protests came from Christians who called for the stop on moral grounds. Evidently, this person had converted to Christianity and some Christians illumined the fact that in Christ there is grace and a new identity, so they claimed that the execution was unnecessary. Robertson also praised this man's conversion, but insisted  that Christians were still held to account within civil society per Romans 13 (see my previous article on Romans 13:1-7). Robertson literally encouraged this prisoner to give up his pursuit of clemency and accept his fate as the Christian thing to do.

I remember Robertson's remarks fairly well because it seemed to contradict the message of grace, forgiveness, and newness that I found in the New Testament. Still, I didn't question it much more after this, because I was still a novice at just being a Christian. I presumed Robertson to be wiser and more moral than I was. Subsequently, I accepted the death penalty as appropriately Christian, since most Christians I knew or knew of accepted it. Plus, most Christians I associated with were Republicans and most Republicans were proponents of capital punishment... Heck, more than 60% of Americans are in favor of the practice. It has been a part of our national and pre-national heritage since 1608. 

And it is true that in the Old Testament there was the general acceptance of what in Latin is called lex talionis or "an eye for an eye." This is the understanding that punishments should measure to the comparable weight of the crime, so for murder, death is the conclusively correct punishment. On the surface this is quite logical, but I am still ill at ease because of exigent circumstances.

First, there remains the question of whether the correct bad guy is always prosecuted. For example, in 1980 St. Louis, a nineteen year old named Quintin Moss was murdered. The suspect -- Larry Griffin -- was convicted on the testimony of one man and other circumstantial evidence, ultimately receiving
the death penalty. Griffin was executed by lethal injection in 1995, despite maintaining his innocence up to the very end. In 2005, the Moss case was re-opened and it was determined that Griffin was in fact innocent. The question is, "Is the death penalty worth the risk of assigning innocent people to their death?"

Second, because the convicted have the right to appeal, the cost of maintaining the death penalty is quite high. Each appealed case can prolong the execution time (an average of something like 15 years), yield court cases that are four times as long as a normal trial, and place undue pressure on the corrections and justice side of things. From lawyers, clerks, jailers, jurists, and so forth, the personnel costs can be quite high, coming close to half a million dollars per appeal. Since 1978, California is said to have spent $4 billion in maintaining its death penalty. Some people will say if most states did as Texas, which executes its death row rosters rather quickly, these costs could be allayed. 

Third, the most common reason offered for maintaining the death penalty has and will likely be its assumed deterrence. This is generally how we do justice with two year old kids: "Don't hit your brother or you will get a spanking." The two year old will invariably hit their brother. The Death Penalty Information Center, as well as scholars from reputable law schools like that at Stanford University, have shown that there is no reliable statistical evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime. It seems more likely that this presupposition exists as a historical appendage that we keep because we've always had it. It's like the comfy old leather arm chair we love in the corner. It feels good when we're in it and the leather marks all our butt-grooves, but it has springs popping out and its legs are about to give. We keep it for familiarity. 

What of the Judeo-Christian responsibility to law and order and justice?

Well, justice does not mean punishment or death. Justice means to justify or realign... It's making right what went wrong. Does justified homicide make unjustified homicide right? Or does it just make two people dead? Some people argue that the death penalty allows for closure for the living. I cannot vouch for all people, but the death penalty never brings a life back. I can also say that the incarcerated have a chance toward repentance and redemption. Many prisoners are productive within prison industry and can still give back to society. Such acceptance may not relieve sorrow, but it seems to suggest greater meaning to life than an eye for an eye can offer.

Still, what of Scripture? An eye for an eye is in there and Romans 13 does say to obey the authorities... Yet, Jesus also advised people to turn the other cheek. He also equated the heart of hatred to murder. Murder comes from a disposition and the disposition is most important to deal with. Killing a murderer changes no disposition of the heart. And, God says in Scripture that vengeance is his. If we like Romans 13 for keeping death penalty laws, we ought to counter-balance it with Romans 12:19-21.

     19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”  21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.   

It seems that Scripture shows that allowing wrongdoers mercy is more effective for justice than just "offing" them. Look at Genesis 4 where Cain killed his brother Abel, becoming the first murderer. What did God do? God allowed Cain to live and wander the earth. Cain's wandering was an exile and exile is a biblical correlative to death. 

My opinions on the death penalty have changed in the last 23 plus years since becoming a Christian. I think the efficacy of the death penalty is weak and the risks are just high enough to cast a shadow on the institution. And I believe that we ought to emulate God's grace when dealing with people. I cannot support the death penalty in good conscience.